Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?

I actually think there are two separate issues and occam's razor probably applies to both.

I think the GIF of the flexing nose on Mark Webber's car as it goes over the bump is massively misleading as it is in super slow motion (the whole thing probably covers less that a tenth of a second).

If you have ever seen what wing flutter can do when it occurs on a plane, then you would know the immense forces it can exert (google it, there are plenty of videos on the subject). Flutter events on planes often result in the wings ripping off the plane or - if it occurs on the tail, it can rip the rear of the plane clear off...

It is therefore not really surprising that the inevitable wing flex (caused by the car hitting the bump) and the resultant inertia of the deformed wing causes the nose to oscillate at a very high frequency - the fact that the wing goes up and down twice in about a tenth of a second would actually indicate the nose is in fact very stiff.

Hitting a bump hard (and the resultant effects) would exert far more instantaneous force on the wing and nose than the car would ever experience through aero loading and I can't think of anyway in which it would be desirable for the wing to oscillate at a high frequency.

Furthermore, the photo posted earlier in this thread of the damaged Caterham would indicate that the carbon fibre outer skin of the nose cone is quite thin in that area (probably to reduce weight/polar moment) so I'd consider the amount of movement shown on the GIF to be pretty normal and certainly not advantageous.

The second issue is the malleable look of the nose cone when the mechanic tries to remove it.

If you watch This Video you can see that the mechanic removing the front wing tries to grab the wing by the camera mount (they make pretty good handles it must be said) and the thing starts flexing so he grabs the front of the nose instead. You can also see that the other mechanic that is waiting with the new front wing is actually holding it by the camera points and swings the entire nose cone into place from the camera points. It looks a stiff as a board.

As has already been discussed, I'd think that the impact with the DRS sign has simply cracked the resin and the only thing holding the nose together was the carbon fibre cloth and the paint/stickers. The DRS sign was made of Foam so it wouldn't have been be a 'sharp' impact to the nose and hence probably wouldn't tear the cloth or damage the paint to any large degree...

Hmmnnn. All very interesting. RBR probably do have something on their car that makes it much much better than anyone else's car in the fast twisty sections of any GP circuit. I'm not sufficiently qualified to debate the pros and cons of what appears to be happening but I am convinced that RBR are way ahead of all other teams when it comes to aero.

Hmmnnn. All very interesting. RBR probably do have something on their car that makes it much much better than anyone else's car in the fast twisty sections of any GP circuit. I'm not sufficiently qualified to debate the pros and cons of what appears to be happening but I am convinced that RBR are way ahead of all other teams when it comes to aero.

I agree with this statement. They are ahead and have something or some things. Nobody really knows for sure.

My main concern is that some of these things may not be legal. I suspect they might have less visual things that are also borderline legal.

Based on no facts, just a hunch. I don't trust them.

I respect great engineering, I don't respect cheating. I'm not saying they are cheats, but I just can't find it within me to respect the team, for some reason. Maybe I'm getting too cynical as I get older?

I agree with this statement. They are ahead and have something or some things. Nobody really knows for sure.

My main concern is that some of these things may not be legal. I suspect they might have less visual things that are also borderline legal.

Based on no facts, just a hunch. I don't trust them.

I respect great engineering, I don't respect cheating. I'm not saying they are cheats, but I just can't find it within me to respect the team, for some reason. Maybe I'm getting too cynical as I get older?

You say that as if their aero guy is some slob off the street instead of one of the most celebrated aerodynamists in motorsport. You have to expect top notch innovation, and with the keen eye of the microscope, constantly shining upon them, you can bet RBR is not going to out and out cheat. It is not worth it.

All teams have bits tossed due to their overstepping on their interpretations. But that is a euphemism for innovation which drives top people to the sport. If it turns into a spec series, in any way shape or form, you will have a lot of spec engineers and innovation will decline.

So it pays to be open-minded rather than cynical when considering innovations. For our own continued enjoyment.

just to help you out with the clown nose pursuit. The middle part of the camera mount is not bolted on to the wing, it is actually part of the wing, the difference in paint color makes it look like a foreign object. The camera(s) are bolted on to the mount. To simplify, the area is omega shaped ( Ω) and hollow [ie it's similar in rigidity to the engine cover, the rigid crash structure starts just behind the camera mount,at the front edge of the front wing pylons] the mechanic was twisting the the two "feet" of the omega.

All trackside signs are made of polystyrene when they are in a place that can be hit, people saying the nose somehow was damaged from the sign are in denial, something is going on with that nose, a nose shouldnt just....bend like that.

You say that as if their aero guy is some slob off the street instead of one of the most celebrated aerodynamists in motorsport. You have to expect top notch innovation, and with the keen eye of the microscope, constantly shining upon them, you can bet RBR is not going to out and out cheat. It is not worth it.

All teams have bits tossed due to their overstepping on their interpretations. But that is a euphemism for innovation which drives top people to the sport. If it turns into a spec series, in any way shape or form, you will have a lot of spec engineers and innovation will decline.

So it pays to be open-minded rather than cynical when considering innovations. For our own continued enjoyment.

I have to disagree. Deliverately pursuing obfuscation in the interpretation of the rules is not innovation. For example, turbos are forbidden. Let's suppose that you put one in your engine, and manage to convince Charlie W., or whomever, that it is not a turbo, but a kompressor. You are not being innovative, you are being silly in your interpretation, and FIA is allowing you to get away with your silliness.

Some years ago, FIA cut Ferrari's flexifloor in the bud, and IMO, it did the right thing. That floor passed the tests, but it was clear that it was against the rules (interpreted as any individual with legal training would do in Continental Europe; I refrain from saying in the world, because apparently common law tradition is different (not really, because their tradition is not statute-based), but anyway, this is not a matter for a F1 forum), and it was rightly forbidden.

Some years latter, FIA allowed DDD, and then F-ducts, which made a mockery of any reasonable interpretation of the rules. Meanwhile, it has forbidden to develop the engines (but has allowed silly engine mappings and stuff, allegedly for reliability reasons), it has forbidden refueling, while forcing teams to use engines that were not designed for no-refuelling races, and has imposed the use of two different tyres during the race, thus reducing the scope where teams can innovate.

So we have had an evolution towards a very reduced field to innovate, coupled with a very lenient approach towards rule interpretation. The consequence, IMO, has been that now teams approach the rules more as TV drama lawyers than as engineers. It is not how can we innovate within the scope rules allow, but how can we justify a device that is clearly out of the scope allowed.

People often justify flexi-wings because it is impossible to manufacture infinitely rigid wings. Well, that is true, but it is also true that any F1 team could do a better job of manufacturing a way more rigid wing than the ones they use right now. Anybody reading the rules with an ounce of common sense would realise that the real aim (and the real innovation) should be to create the fastest car with as rigid wings as possible. What teams are doing right now is the equivalent of cutting every chicane in the circuit; FIA may allow it, and teams may get away with it. But IMO, that is not how it should be. Innovation should be the domain of engieneers, not of Philadelphia lawyers.

Nov.8 (GMM/Inautonews.com) The seemingly never-ending saga about bendy formula one cars is back in the media spotlight, and as ever championship leader Red Bull is right in the middle.

Multiple videos depicting the front nose of the world champions’ 2012 RB8 car have emerged in the wake of last weekend’s Abu Dhabi grand prix, showing the extreme tip of the front nose section to be apparently made of some sort of ‘rubbery’ material.

All trackside signs are made of polystyrene when they are in a place that can be hit, people saying the nose somehow was damaged from the sign are in denial, something is going on with that nose, a nose shouldnt just....bend like that.

You can clearly see in the gif above your post that it is definitely not just made of poly. has some sort of vinyl/laminate wrap which would add significantly to it's mass/impact.

Driver like Seb is not supposed to hit such thing. Aparently he has little experience in tailing during the safety car, side effect of being at top so long so young. I recall Seb destroyed Webber's race in Japan in his STR. It is not a problem, but now one secret of RB8's speed is revealed to public and caused public focus... Red Bull is acting to eradicate it and waiting for the season to end for sure.

Lotus (Caterham) cars were reported to have such device as well, but as RB8 leading the both championship, the sever investigation,at least from fans eyes, are given to the car. IMHO FIA cannot ignore this dubious element that certainly causes the cost of car to raise...

Driver like Seb is not supposed to hit such thing. Aparently he has little experience in tailing during the safety car, side effect of being at top so long so young. I recall Seb destroyed Webber's race in Japan in his STR. It is not a problem, but now one secret of RB8's speed is revealed to public and caused public focus... Red Bull is acting to eradicate it and waiting for the season to end for sure.

Lotus (Caterham) cars were reported to have such device as well, but as RB8 leading the both championship, the sever investigation,at least from fans eyes, are given to the car. IMHO FIA cannot ignore this dubious element that certainly causes the cost of car to raise...

You mean the incident induced by Hamiltons erratic driving in poor weather and bad sight conditions which caused the FIA to drop the penalty and clamped down on this kind of driving behind the SC?

This thread is quite funny it is so amusing to see people throwing away all the logic to cling to there bias. I wrote this early and repost it to avoid typing the same thing again.

Did some of you actually gave a closer look at the impact with the DRS sign? After it was hit by the tyre it was thrown upwards against the left camera housing. As the impact was considerable and the attachement of the housing not designed to withstand impacts it broke rather easily. Dau has already explained how the crash structure designed to absorb is inside of the visible shell which is of course optimized for aerodynamic performance. In this case the mechanic tried to remove the nose cone in the usual fashion by pulling the left and right pod with similar power. As the DRS sign impact damaged the attachment(s) the whole left pod gave much more easily way.

Once again it is important to remind yourself that non- or lightly-stressed areas, especially high and far from the CoG are built as light as possible. The pods do not cause downforce and can be attached while investing little weight. As we have seen during the last seasons the whole nose section of quite some cars flex relative to the driver safety cell.

P.S: Loud Howards comment fits in quite neatly, saw it only now.

With a bit of common sense it is rather easy to come to a decent solution. One should observe the way the mechanic holds the ready, undamaged front wing. It is quite obvious that it is the SOP to handle the nose this way, with the two camera pods as handlebar. Nothing twisting there when he puts in into place while the mechanic removing the nose has to move his hand to another area to get a firm grip to get the nose quickly away.

Obviously this will not change the mind of the jokers which have their dreamland version imprinted firmly in their mind. Even if we see a another nose change in the pits with nothing twisting it won't change anything for them because in this case the FIA will have had a quiet word with RBR.

But you can actually see the camera housing move/break in the gif above

that.

I just checked every onboard video shown of Seb up until his nose change. in race speed, the camera housing is solid as a rock. then comes the safety car, the incident happened, and when they show the onboard of Seb when he's complaining on the radio (so after the incident) you can see that the housing moves when passing under the hotel bridge. then you look at the onboard when he hits the DRS sign (we've got a gif of that I think) and you can see the left housing moving up and down when hitting the sign. after that they show a close up slowmo of the front wing and you can see the right housing flapping as well, leaving a gap to the nose when it is on the down.

so in short: you can see the camera housings go loose, you can see the left one flapping on the onboard, and the right one from the slowmo. you can also see that they remain stable in relation to each other. my conclusion: they are fixed to each other but not to the soft shell on the outside (so possibly to the crash structure) then the fixation fails, and the housings start to wobble (but they stay fix compared to each other) and at the pit stop, when the mechanic applies uneven forces to the sides, one goes up, other goes down, and they twist the soft shell which is not secured to the housing (as only the left side of the nose twists upwards because of being pushed by the housing, the right side of the nose isn't pulled down by the housing going down)

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :

- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Quite clearly the RB nose has proven not to adhere to the regulations. I'm guessing it will pass the wing load tests but it definitely does have a "degree of freedom".

If the front wing is flapping about like that over a kerb then the amount it can move under aero loads must be immense. This is probably not what anyone would call rigidly secured in everyday parlance. Now, if the FIA is of the opinion that passing the load test(s) = rigidly secured, then they are off the hook of course. If not, they may end up changing the test or whatever. There's not much more to say about I guess, just wait and see.

Every part of the car which is not an integral part of the chasis or is mounted to the chasis in some way, has a "degree of freedom".

If a pit man trying to lift the nose causes it to deform and twist 45 degrees I'd say that is clearly a degree of freedom that has been designed in. Nothing is infinitely rigid but that nose is designed to deform.

Every part of the car which is not an integral part of the chasis or is mounted to the chasis in some way, has a "degree of freedom".

Therefore, any degree of freedom will do, and aerodynamists' task must be to study and use that degree of freedom in benefit of performance. Rendering the rule useless in the process.

That way of enforcing regulations turns the whole thing into unmanageable chaos. We have supposed guidelines issued at the drivers' briefing that goes against normal rules, and we, the audience, are not informed about them. We got regulations where the exception is the rule.

If a pit man trying to lift the nose causes it to deform and twist 45 degrees I'd say that is clearly a degree of freedom that has been designed in. Nothing is infinitely rigid but that nose is designed to deform.

if the camera mount is broken, of course it has a degree of freedom. just like the left upper flap of the wing had a degree of freedom after meeting the DRS sign.

the nose does not bend. the broken cam housing + attached yellow vinyl sticker move/peel. you can see in the pit stop gif the ripples in the vinyl just below and to the right of the infinity logo.

But you can actually see the camera housing move/break in the gif above

I think you need your eyes checked mate, that nose bends in all directions, and as a Red Bull fan I just don't think you want to believe it. Something is going on with that nose and it will be found out.

No, because those are actuated elements and therefore movable aero by definition.

I read that FLEX isn't move..surface of that wings FLEX, and 'the muscle' is a plastic bag that FLEX with air presure... so nothing moves.. only flex.

But I defend the point that Webber's F1 nose moves when it flexes.

I think it is " a construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground" an must be "prohibited under all circumstances" "3.15 ... Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances". I think that not ony it give an aerodinamic gain, but it works as a 'tuned mass damper'

"From the point of view of the reglament (and therefore of the FIA) This allowed a soft end, because it complies with the requirements of the first 15 centimetres of material, the end of the nose.One thing is the letter of the rules - that the structure is deformable, in this case - dictated by security reasons. Another thing is its application to obtain best results."

You mean the incident induced by Hamiltons erratic driving in poor weather and bad sight conditions which caused the FIA to drop the penalty and clamped down on this kind of driving behind the SC?

This thread is quite funny it is so amusing to see people throwing away all the logic to cling to there bias. I wrote this early and repost it to avoid typing the same thing again.

Speak about Lewis, it was very remarkable to recall Lewis hitting the back of Kimi at the pitlane exit. I sometime do think that the guys are very wel trained to do what they do. reminds me of football players in the penalty field. Only that the guys, like Lewis in this case, do not get reward for it.

There is also this comment that suggests that it may not be a closed case as yet

“That said, it is possible and indeed likely that Red Bull has gone further with its interpretation, because the deformable structure holds the front wing and can be used to get (the wing) closer to the ground.

“Some technicians at the competition are convinced of this,” the report added